DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 06/10/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 101
Applicant asserts that the claims are integrated into a practical application in a conclusory manner and references aspects of the specification which state that the prediction target battery is a battery installed in an electric vehicle, the computer is an on-board computer installed in the electric vehicle, and that the time series data is acquired based on output from a battery sensor provided in the prediction target battery. Applicant further requests explanation of a later explained effect of the disclosed invention.
The arguments presented are conclusory and not clearly articulated such that the examiner can identify what particularly is being challenged. The inclusion of the limitations for an onboard computer on an electric vehicle and a battery sensor of the prediction target battery, as amended in the claims, are insufficient to demonstrate a practical application of the recited judicial exceptions and are merely the linkage of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. It appears as though the applicant’s response is trying to assert that the claims reflect an alleged improvement pertaining to an onboard computer that has relatively low processing power. These features are not exemplified in the claim and would, as such, not reflect any alleged improvement. The claimed invention is rooted in the optimal calculation of an exponent value, whereby the claimed invention leverages generic computing components as tools to perform such an optimization process in a given technological environment of batteries for electric vehicles. The specification clearly describes the process of the claimed invention in terms of being performed by a designer, which is understood to be a human being (See ¶46-54). This is evidence provided by the applicant that the steps of the claim may be construed as a mental process. In the specification, the designer leverages a generically-recited linear regression model by which to apply the parameters identified by the designer. The mechanism by which training of the model occurs is non-inventive and non-specific and amounts to merely applying the judicial exception using generic computing components in a non-meaningful way. Furthermore, the steps performed by the designer include a sequence of mathematical calculations which are additional recitations of abstract ideas of mathematical concepts. The recited exceptions are not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements of the claim do not provide an inventive concept- the steps which can be construed as abstract ideas (mental process or the mathematical concepts) cannot provide the inventive concept. Per MPEP 2106.05(a)(II), “However, it is important to keep in mind that an improvement in the abstract idea itself (e.g. a recited fundamental economic concept) is not an improvement in technology.” Though it does not appear that the applicant explicitly claims any effect of the optimized exponent, it seems that any purported improvement would flow as a direct consequence to the identification of the optimal exponent parameter obtained by the mental process/ mathematical concepts accompanied with generic computing components as tools to perform and apply the processes.
Accordingly, for the reasons provided in the updated rejection of this action in conjunction with this response, the claims remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 102 and 35 U.S.C. § 103
Applicant has amended claims 1 and 8 in response to the previously set forth rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102 in view of Mizoguchi. Applicant submits that Mizoguchi fails to disclose (1) an onboard computer installed in an electric vehicle, (2) the input parameters for the battery model are generated by raising the usage history parameters (time series data of current voltage, and temperature) to a power of the optimal exponent, and (3) the optimal exponent is determined by the procedures in steps (A) to (D).
Regarding the rejections to the claims under 35 U.S.C. § 102 and 35 U.S.C. § 103, applicant’s arguments have been considered and are persuasive. No additional prior art has been found to cure the deficiencies of the art cited by the applicant. Accordingly, the rejections have been withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The following section follows the 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidance (PEG) for analyzing subject matter eligibility:
Step 1 - Statutory Category:
Step 1 of the PEG analysis entails considering whether the claimed subject matter falls within the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter identified by 35 U.S.C. 101 (process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter).
Step 2A Prong 1 - Judicial exception:
In Step 2A Prong 1, examiners evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception (an abstract idea, law of nature, or a natural phenomenon).
Step 2a Prong 2 - Integration into a practical application:
If claims recite a judicial exception, the claim requires further analysis in Step 2A Prong 2. In Step 2A Prong 2, examiners evaluate whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application.
Step 2B - Significantly More:
If the additional elements identified in Step 2A Prong 2 do not integrate the exception into a practical application, then the claim is directed to the recited judicial exception and requires further analysis under Step 2B- Significantly More.
As noted in the MPEP 2106.05(II): The identification of the additional element(s) in the claim from Step 2A Prong 2, as well as the conclusions from Step 2A Prong 2 on the considerations discussed in MPEP 2106.05(a) -(c), (e), (f), and (h) are to be carried over. Claim limitations identified as Insignificant Extra-Solution Activities are further evaluated to determine if the elements are beyond what is well -understood, routine, and conventional (WURC) activity, as dictated by MPEP 2106.05(II).
Independent Claims:
Claim 1:
Step 1: Claim 1 and its dependent claims 2-7 are directed to a device which falls within one of the four statutory categories of a machine.
Step 2A Prong 1: Claim 1 recites a judicial exception, noted in bold:
calculate the usage history parameters on a basis of the time series data; -This claim limitation can reasonably be read to entail evaluating time series data so as to derive usage history parameters. This task can be performed within the human mind or using a pen and paper as an assistive physical aid. Therefore, this claim limitation includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas of a mental process. Furthermore, the recitation of “calculate” is the recitation of a mathematical calculation. Therefore, this claim limitation includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas as a mathematical concept.
generate input parameters by raising the usage history parameters to a power of an optimal exponent: and- This claim limitation can be reasonably read to entail evaluating a usage history parameter with regard to an exponent value so as to determine parameter values. This task can be performed within the human mind or using a pen and paper as an assistive physical aid. This is supported by the specification, [0040] which describes a designer (understood to be a human being) performing the task of raising the plurality of usage parameters by a prescribed exponent. Therefore, this claim limitation includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas of a mental process. Further, the recitation of “raising the usage history parameters by an optimal exponent” is the recitation of a mathematical calculation. Therefore, this claim limitation includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas as a mathematical concept.
calculate the predicted value of the degradation indicator for the prediction target battery by inputting the input parameters into the battery model as explanatory variables, wherein a value of the optimal exponent is set by a method comprising steps of: -This claim limitation can be reasonably read to entail evaluating input parameter values with regard for a battery model in terms of variables. This task can be performed within the human mind or using a pen and paper as an assistive physical aid. Therefore, this claim limitation includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas of a mental process. Additionally, the recitation of “calculating a predicted value” [[using]] “explanatory variables” is the explicit recitation of mathematical calculations. Therefore, this claim limitation includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas as a mathematical concept.
(B) raising the usage history parameters to a power of a prescribed exponent to thereby generate time series data of input parameters; The claim limitation can be reasonably read to entail exponentiating parameters to generate data. This is the explicit recitation of a mathematical calculation (raising parameters by a prescribed exponent). Therefore, this claim limitation includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas as a mathematical concept. Furthermore, this task can be performed within the human mind or using a pen and paper as an assistive physical aid. For example, a human can take a parameter value and apply an exponentiation to the parameter value with consideration to a time to generate a time series data result. Therefore, this claim limitation includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas of a mental process.
(D) by repeatedly performing steps (B) and (C) while varying a value of the exponent, determining a value of the optimal exponent with highest prediction accuracy The claim limitation can be reasonably read to entail performing the exponentiating step and the training step to evaluate an exponent for optimality in the application. This task can be performed within the human mind or using a pen and paper as an assistive physical aid, and in this particular case, utilizes the training of a machine learning algorithm (as a generic computing component), to execute the mental process. The courts do not distinguish between mental processes performed in the human mind or on a computer and therefore the claim recites the judicial exception of abstract ideas as a mental process. Furthermore, this claim recites the evaluation of a value with regard to a highest accuracy number which is the recitation of a mathematical relationship. Therefore, this claim limitation includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas as a mathematical concept.
Therefore, the claim recites a judicial exception.
Step 2A Prong 2: Additional elements were identified and are noted in italics.
an onboard computer installed in an electric vehicle configured to: - This limitation has been identified as Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)) for invoking the use of a computer to perform the judicial exception and Field of Use and Technological Environment (MPEP 2106.05(h)) for generally linking to the technological environment by which it is installed
acquire time series data about a current, a voltage, and a temperature of a prediction target battery installed in the electric vehicle, based on an output from a battery sensor provided in the prediction target battery; - This limitation has been identified as Insignificant Extra Solution Activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)) of mere data gathering and Field of Use and Technological Environment (MPEP 2106.05(h)) for generally linking the data acquisition to the particular technological environment
(A) acquiring time series data about the usage history parameters and the degradation indicator for a plurality of sample batteries of the same type as the prediction target battery; - This claim limitation has been identified as Insignificant Extra Solution Activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)) of mere data gathering. Further, the claim has been identified as generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment Field of Use and Technological Environment (MPEP 2106.05(h))
(C) training the battery model by using the time series data of the input parameters and the degradation indicator as training data; and– This limitation has been identified as Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)) because the limitation suggests mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer or merely use a computer model in its ordinary capacity as a tool to execute the judicial exception.
The courts have found that merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception (MPEP 2106.05(f))); adding insignificant extra- solution activity to the judicial exception (Insignificant Extra Solution Activity (MPEP 2106.05(g))); and generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment and field of use (Field of Use and Technological Environment (MPEP 2106.05(h))) does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The additional elements do not appear to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: As discussed in Step 2A Prong 2, additional elements were identified as Insignificant Extra Solution Activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)) which must be further evaluated to determine if they are beyond WURC activities. Additional elements identified otherwise and conclusions from Step 2A Prong 2 are carried over for evaluating if the claim, as a whole, amounts to an inventive concept that is significantly more than the judicial exception:
acquire time series data about a current, a voltage, and a temperature of a prediction target battery installed in the electric vehicle, based on output from a battery sensor provided in the prediction target battery; – This limitation has been identified as the insignificant extra solution activity of mere data gathering, as stated previously. Under broadest reasonable interpretation and when read in light of the specification, the limitation includes receiving data over a network. The courts have found that receiving and transmitting data over a network are computer functions that are well-understood, routine, and conventional.
(A) acquiring time series data about the usage history parameters and the degradation indicator for a plurality of sample batteries of the same type as the prediction target battery: – This limitation has been identified as the insignificant extra solution activity of mere data gathering, as stated previously. Under broadest reasonable interpretation and when read in light of the specification, the limitation includes receiving data over a network. The courts have found that receiving and transmitting data over a network are computer functions that are well-understood, routine, and conventional.
The courts have found that simply appending insignificant extra solution activities that are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities to the judicial exception does not qualify the limitations as “significantly more” than the recited judicial exception. The remaining additional elements were identified as Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)) and Field of Use and Technological Environment (MPEP 2106.05(h)), as stated previously. The courts have found that merely using a computer as a tool to perform a mental process and generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment and field of use does not qualify the limitations as “significantly more” than the recited judicial exception.
With the additional elements viewed independently and as part of the ordered combination, the claim as a whole does not appear to amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception because the claim is using generic computing components recited at a high level of generality and functioning in their normal capacity in conjunction with well-understood, routine, and conventional activity to enable the performance of a task that can practically be performed within the human mind or using pen and paper as an assistive physical aid. Therefore, the claim does not include additional elements, alone or in combination that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception.
Conclusion: Based on this rationale, the claim has been deemed to be ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 8:
Step 1: Claim 8 and its dependent claims 9-12 are directed to a device which falls within one of the four statutory categories of a machine.
Step 2A Prong 1: Claim 8 recites a judicial exception, noted in bold:
calculate the usage history parameters on a basis of the time series data; -This claim limitation can reasonably be read to entail evaluating time series data so as to derive usage history parameters. This task can be performed within the human mind or using a pen and paper as an assistive physical aid. Therefore, this claim limitation includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas of a mental process. Furthermore, the recitation of “calculate” is the recitation of a mathematical calculation. Therefore, this claim limitation includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas as a mathematical concept.
generate input parameters by raising the usage history parameters to a power of an optimal exponent; and- This claim limitation can be reasonably read to entail evaluating a usage history parameter with regard to an exponent value so as to determine parameter values. This task can be performed within the human mind or using a pen and paper as an assistive physical aid. This is supported by the specification, [0040] which describes a designer (understood to be a human being) performing the task of raising the plurality of usage parameters by a prescribed exponent. Therefore, this claim limitation includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas of a mental process. Further, the recitation of “raising the usage history parameters by an optimal exponent” is the recitation of a mathematical calculation. Therefore, this claim limitation includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas as a mathematical concept.
calculate the predicted value of the degradation indicator for the prediction target battery by inputting the input parameters into the battery model as explanatory variables, wherein- This claim limitation can be reasonably read to entail evaluating input parameter values with regard for a battery model in terms of variables. This task can be performed within the human mind or using a pen and paper as an assistive physical aid. Therefore, this claim limitation includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas of a mental process. Additionally, the recitation of “calculating a predicted value” [[using]] “explanatory variables” is the explicit recitation of mathematical calculations. Therefore, this claim limitation includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas as a mathematical concept.
the battery model is a linear regression model expressing the objective variable as a linear function of a plurality of the explanatory variables, and The claim limitation can be reasonably read to entail describing a model in terms of its mathematical function and variables within the function as a mathematical relationship. Therefore, this claim limitation includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas as a mathematical concept.
Therefore, the claim recites a judicial exception.
Step 2A Prong 2: Additional elements were identified and are noted in italics.
an onboard a computer installed in an electric vehicle configured to: - This limitation has been identified as Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)) for invoking the use of a computer to perform the judicial exception and Field of Use and Technological Environment (MPEP 2106.05(h)) for generally linking to the technological environment by which it is installed
acquire time series data about a current, a voltage, and a temperature of a prediction target battery installed in the electric vehicle, based on output from a battery sensor provided in the prediction target battery; - This limitation has been identified as Insignificant Extra Solution Activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)) of mere data gathering and Technological Environment (MPEP 2106.05(h)) for generally linking the data acquisition to the particular technological environment
the usage history parameters include current factor parameters that treat the current of the battery as a factor, voltage factor parameters that treat the voltage of the battery as a factor, and temperature factor parameters that treat the temperature of the battery as a factor -This claim limitation has been identified as Field of Use and Technological Environment (MPEP 2106.05(h)) for generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
The courts have found that merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception (MPEP 2106.05(f))); adding insignificant extra- solution activity to the judicial exception (Insignificant Extra Solution Activity (MPEP 2106.05(g))); and generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment and field of use (Field of Use and Technological Environment (MPEP 2106.05(h))) does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The additional elements do not appear to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: As discussed in Step 2A Prong 2, additional elements were identified as Insignificant Extra Solution Activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)) which must be further evaluated to determine if they are beyond WURC activities. Additional elements identified otherwise and conclusions from Step 2A Prong 2 are carried over for evaluating if the claim, as a whole, amounts to an inventive concept that is significantly more than the judicial exception:
acquire time series data about a current, a voltage, and a temperature of a prediction target battery installed in the electric vehicle, based on output from a battery sensor provided in the prediction target battery; – This limitation has been identified as the insignificant extra solution activity of mere data gathering, as stated previously. Under broadest reasonable interpretation and when read in light of the specification, the limitation includes receiving data over a network. The courts have found that receiving and transmitting data over a network are computer functions that are well-understood, routine, and conventional.
The courts have found that simply appending insignificant extra solution activities that are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities to the judicial exception does not qualify the limitations as “significantly more” than the recited judicial exception. The remaining additional elements were identified as Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)) and Field of Use and Technological Environment (MPEP 2106.05(h)), as stated previously. The courts have found that merely using a computer as a tool to perform a mental process and generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment and field of use does not qualify the limitations as “significantly more” than the recited judicial exception.
With the additional elements viewed independently and as part of the ordered combination, the claim as a whole does not appear to amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception because the claim is using generic computing components recited at a high level of generality and functioning in their normal capacity in conjunction with well-understood, routine, and conventional activity to enable the performance of a task that can practically be performed within the human mind or using pen and paper as an assistive physical aid. Therefore, the claim does not include additional elements, alone or in combination that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception.
Conclusion: Based on this rationale, the claim has been deemed to be ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Dependent Claims:
Examiner notes limitations identified as judicial exceptions are indicated in italicized bold and limitations identified as additional elements are indicated using italics.
Claim 2
Step 1: Regarding dependent claim 2, the judicial exception of independent claim 1 is further incorporated. The claim falls within the corresponding statutory category as stated previously.
Step 2A Prong 1: Claim 2 additionally recites the limitation wherein the battery model is a linear regression model expressing the objective variable as a linear function of the explanatory variables, which can reasonably be read to describe the battery model in terms of the mathematical relationships that define it. Therefore, this claim limitation includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas as a mathematical concept.
Step 2A Prong 2 & Step 2B: Claim 2 does not recite any additional elements that would integrate the judicial exceptions into a practical application nor amount to significantly more.
This claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 3
Step 1: Regarding dependent claim 3, the judicial exception of independent claim 1 is further incorporated. The claim falls within the corresponding statutory category as stated previously.
Step 2A Prong 1: Claim 3 does not recite any additional judicial exceptions.
Step 2A Prong 2: Claim 3 additionally recites the limitation wherein the usage history parameters include current factor parameters that treat the current of the battery as a factor, voltage factor parameters that treat the voltage of the battery as a factor, and temperature factor parameters that treat the temperature of the battery as a factor. This limitation has been identified as Field of Use and Technological Environment (MPEP 2106.05(h)) because the limitation generally links the use of the judicial exception to battery degradation. The courts have ruled generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. With the additional element viewed in conjunction with the other limitations, the claim as a whole does not appear to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: The courts have found that limitations that amount to generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use are not enough to qualify the claim as significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim does not include additional elements, alone or in the ordered combination that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception.
This claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 4
Step 1: Regarding dependent claim 4, the judicial exception of independent claim 1 is further incorporated. The claim falls within the corresponding statutory category as stated previously.
Step 2A Prong 1: Claim 4 additionally recites the limitation wherein the step (D) comprises determining the optimal exponent with a common value for the current factor parameters, the voltage factor parameters, and the temperature factor parameters, which further describes the mental process recited in claim 1, wherein a human is capable of performing a search for an optimal exponent and can furthermore evaluate the optimal exponent with regard to the factor parameters as a whole. Therefore, this claim further recites details of the mental process. The recitation of the word “common” with regard to the exponent value describes a mathematical relationship wherein an exponent value is applied to multiple variables. Therefore, this claim also includes the recitation of judicial exception of abstract ideas of mathematical concepts.
Step 2A Prong 2 & Step 2B: Claim 4 does not recite any additional elements that would integrate the judicial exceptions into a practical application nor amount to significantly more than the judicial exceptions.
This claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 5
Step 1: Regarding dependent claim 5, the judicial exception of independent claim 1 is further incorporated. The claim falls within the corresponding statutory category as stated previously.
Step 2A Prong 1: Claim 5 additionally recites the limitation wherein the step (D) comprises determining the optimal exponent with independent values for the current factor parameters, the voltage factor parameters, and the temperature factor parameters, further describes the mental process recited in claim 1, wherein a human is capable of performing a search for an optimal exponent and can furthermore evaluate the optimal exponents with regard to the factor parameters individually/independently. Therefore, this claim further recites details of the mental process. The recitation of the word “independent” with regard to the exponent value describes a mathematical relationship wherein an exponent value is applied to multiple variables. Therefore, this claim also includes the recitation of judicial exception of abstract ideas of mathematical concepts.
Step 2A Prong 2 & Step 2B: Claim 5 does not recite any additional elements that would integrate the judicial exceptions into a practical application nor amount to significantly more than the judicial exceptions.
This claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 6
Step 1: Regarding dependent claim 6, the judicial exception of independent claim 1 is further incorporated. The claim falls within the corresponding statutory category as stated previously.
Step 2A Prong 1: Claim 6 additionally recites the limitation wherein the step (D) comprises determining a value for the optimal exponent in a range from 0 to 1 which further describes the mental process recited in claim 1 and additionally recites the evaluation of the optimal exponent that falls within a range, which is a mathematical relationship of numbers. Therefore, in addition to this limitation further reciting details of the mental process, the claim further recites a mathematical relationship which is indicative of reciting the judicial exception of abstract ideas as a mathematical concept.
Step 2A Prong 2 & Step 2B: Claim 6 does not recite any additional elements that would integrate the judicial exception into a practical application nor amount to significantly more.
This claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 7
Step 1: Regarding dependent claim 7, the judicial exception of independent claim 1 is further incorporated. The claim falls within the corresponding statutory category as stated previously.
Step 2A Prong 1: Claim 7 additionally recites the limitation and the optimal exponent is found by evaluating a prediction accuracy of the battery model trained using the verification data., which can reasonably be read to entail evaluating a prediction accuracy of the battery model. This task can be performed within the human mind or using a pen and paper as an assistive physical aid. Therefore, this claim limitation includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas of a mental process. Furthermore, a prediction accuracy is a mathematical calculation and therefore this claim additionally recites the judicial exception of abstract ideas of mathematical concepts.
Step 2A Prong 2: Claim 7 additionally recites the limitations wherein in the step (C), a portion of the time series data of the input parameters and the degradation indicator that belongs to a prescribed training period is treated as the training data, and and in the step (D), a portion of the time series data of the input parameters and the degradation indicator that belongs to a verification period subsequent to the training period is treated as verification data. These limitations have been identified as Field of Use and Technological Environment (MPEP 2106.05(h)) because the limitation generally links the judicial exception to the particular technological environment of using a model that has training and testing data with the recited particularities. The courts have ruled generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. With the additional element viewed in conjunction with the other limitations, the claim as a whole does not appear to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: The courts have found that limitations that amount to generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use are not enough to qualify the claim as significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim does not include additional elements, alone or in the ordered combination that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception.
This claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 9
Step 1: Regarding dependent claim 9, the judicial exception of independent claim 8 is further incorporated. The claim falls within the corresponding statutory category as stated previously.
Step 2A Prong 1 Claim 9 additionally recites wherein the current factor parameters are integral values of product of the current of the battery and time, voltage factor parameters are integral values of time spent within predetermined voltage ranges and temperature factor parameters are integral values of time spent within predetermined temperature ranges. -This limitation can reasonably be read to entail defining factor parameters by their mathematical descriptions (integrals, product, etc.) which are mathematical relationships and calculations to describe the values. Therefore, this claim limitation includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas as a mathematical concept.
Step 2A Prong 2 & Step 2B: Claim 9 does not recite any additional elements that would integrate the judicial exceptions into a practical application nor amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exceptions.
This claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 10
Step 1: Regarding dependent claim 10, the judicial exception of independent claim 8 is further incorporated. The claim falls within the corresponding statutory category as stated previously.
Step 2A Prong 1: Claim 10 additionally recites the limitation generate input parameters by raising the current factor parameters, the voltage factor parameters, and the temperature factor parameters to a power of the optimal exponent set to a common value for each, which further describes the mental process recited in claim 8, wherein a human is capable of evaluating parameter values with respect to an exponent value. Therefore, this claim further recites details of the mental process. The recitation of the word “common” with regard to the exponent value describes a mathematical relationship wherein an exponent value is applied to multiple variables. Therefore, this claim also includes the recitation of judicial exception of abstract ideas of mathematical concepts.
Step 2A Prong 2: Claim 10 additionally recites the limitation wherein the computer is further configured to which has been identified as Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)). The courts have found that using a computer as a tool to perform an existing process does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: The courts have found that limitations that amount to invoking the use of generic computers to perform the judicial exception are not enough to qualify the claim as significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim does not include additional elements, alone or in the ordered combination that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception.
This claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 11
Step 1: Regarding dependent claim 11, the judicial exception of independent claim 8 is further incorporated. The claim falls within the corresponding statutory category as stated previously.
Step 2A Prong 1: Claim 11 additionally recites the limitation generate input parameters by raising the current factor parameters, the voltage factor parameters, and the temperature factor parameters to a power of the optimal exponent set to independent values for each further describes the mental process recited in claim 8, wherein a human is capable of evaluating parameter values with respect to an exponent value. Therefore, this claim further recites details of the mental process. The recitation of the word “independent” with regard to the exponent value describes a mathematical relationship wherein an exponent value is applied to multiple variables. Therefore, this claim also includes the recitation of judicial exception of abstract ideas of mathematical concepts.
Step 2A Prong 2: Claim 11 additionally recites the limitation wherein the computer is further configured to which has been identified as Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)). The courts have found that using a computer as a tool to perform an existing process does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: The courts have found that limitations that amount to invoking the use of generic computers to perform the judicial exception are not enough to qualify the claim as significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim does not include additional elements, alone or in the ordered combination that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception.
This claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 12
Step 1: Regarding dependent claim 12, the judicial exception of independent claim 1 is further incorporated. The claim falls within the corresponding statutory category as stated previously.
Step 2A Prong 1: Claim 12 additionally recites the limitation wherein a value of the optimal exponent is set within a range from 0 to 1 which further describes the mental process recited in claim 1 because a human being can make a judgement as to a value with regard for a specified range. The claim limitation additionally recites the evaluation of the optimal exponent that falls within a range, which is a mathematical relationship of numbers. Therefore, in addition to this limitation further reciting details of the mental process, the claim further recites a mathematical relationship which is indicative of reciting the judicial exception of abstract ideas as a mathematical concept.
Step 2A Prong 2 & Step 2B: Claim 12 does not recite any additional elements that would integrate the judicial exception into a practical application nor amount to significantly more.
This claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-12 are allowable over the prior art.
The following is a statement for indicating allowable subject matter:
A complete prior art search has been performed on the claims, as amended. However, the search failed to yield prior art that teaches all of the claimed limitations of the present claims.
The closest prior art of record includes:
US 20230003809 A1 discloses a battery deterioration estimation device that outputs the estimated life of a battery and leverages a learning model to intake temperature, current, and voltage to estimate the battery’s state of health. An internal resistance curve is derived according to linear or curve approximation. The current and voltage values may be acquired from historical data and used by the estimation device. Historical internal resistance data is derived and stored, wherein the internal resistance is described as being derived from current and voltage values. Derived internal resistance is used with a first degree of deterioration curve to acquire a plurality of degrees of deterioration, as a singular parameter with multiple values. The degrees of deterioration are used as input to the learning model. The degree of deterioration curve is selected based off the correlation to the derived internal resistance value, as an optimal match to the measurements of the controlled battery. The plurality of degrees of deterioration are input into a learning model characterizing behavior of the battery, wherein input data to a neural network is understood to be the explanatory variables that dictate the output of the model. The optimal rate of deterioration is determined using a learning model that is retrained according to teacher data. The teacher data is described as being derived from time series data and degrees of deterioration.
CN107925134B discloses a battery management device equipped as part of a hybrid vehicle. The battery management system includes a prediction unit and a battery information acquisition unit. The acquisition unit calculates parameters about the battery from sensor measurements mounted on the battery.
CN112816880A discloses a battery storage capacity attenuation model wherein the model is a multivariate linear regression model that characterizes a linear relationship of battery parameters to the attenuation rate of the battery. The model includes multiple fitting parameters.
CN105353313A discloses the temperature factor coefficient as being the integral value of the difference between the current temperature and the temperature of a previous calculation.
The prior art of record, alone and in combination, fail to disclose all the features of the claimed invention including at least in the independent claims:
1. A battery degradation prediction device that calculates a predicted value of a degradation indica tor for a battery according to a battery model that treats powers of a plurality of usage history parameters defined on a basis of time series data about a current, a voltage, and a temperature of a battery as explanatory variables and treats a predicted value of a degradation indicator for the battery as an objective variable, the battery degradation prediction device comprising:
…
generate input parameters by raising the usage history parameters to a power of an optimal exponent; and
…
(B) raising the usage history parameters to a power of a prescribed exponent to thereby generate time series data of input parameters;
…
and
8. A battery degradation prediction device that calculates a
predicted value of a degradation indicator for a battery according to a battery model that treats powers of a plurality of usage history parameters defined on a basis of time series data about a current, a voltage, and a temperature of the battery as explanatory variables and treats the predicted value of the degradation indicator for the battery as an objective variable, the battery degradation prediction device comprising:
…
generate input parameters by raising the usage history parameters, to a power of an optimal exponent; and
…
Accordingly, the independent claims have been allowable over the prior art. Because the dependent claims incorporate the matter found to be allowable, they are likewise allowable over the prior art.
The claims remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 but would be allowable if amended to overcome such rejections.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EMILY GORMAN LEATHERS whose telephone number is (571)272-1880. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9:00 am-5:00 pm ET.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, EMERSON PUENTE can be reached at (571) 272-3652. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/E.G.L./Examiner, Art Unit 2187
/JOHN E JOHANSEN/Examiner, Art Unit 2187
Prosecution Insights